WHO REALLY OWNS THE SPRATLY ISLANDS ?

By: Capt. Alvils

Owing to its close proximity to the island of Palawan, there is no doubt that we definitely own the Spratlys, regardless of other nations claim that their history books says we do not.

The fact is, before World War II, nobody really owns the Spratly Islands. If the Chinese and Vietnamese would insist that it was their ancestors who discovered the Spratlys and therefore owns the area, we might as well accept that the Portuguese Ferdinand Magellan or the colonizing Spaniards is the real owner of the Philippines.

The Spratly Islands are a group of more than 650 reefs, islets, atoll, cays and islands in the South China Sea between the Philippines and Vietnam. However, a quick glance at its exact location in the world map (see inset) would show that it is much closer to the southern tip of Palawan Island than the coast of Vietnam or any other countries claiming ownership.

The Islands comprise less than five square kilometers of land area, spread over more than 400,000 square kilometers of sea. It is also part of the three archipelagos of the South China Sea, comprising more than 30,000 islands and reefs and which so complicates geography, governance and economics in that region of Southeast Asia. Such small and remote islands have little economic in themselves, but are important in establishing international boundaries. There are no native islanders but there are rich fishing grounds and initial surveys indicate the islands may contain rich deposits of oil and gas. The discovery of a huge oil and gas deposits in Camago-Malampaya oil field, in northwest coast of Palawan, located a few hundred nautical miles from Spratly Islands, provides little doubt that the natural deposits from both locations may be linked at the bottom of the sea.

The Spratly Islands is being disputed by China, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei and Vietnam. 45 of its islands are occupied by relatively small numbers of military forces from the disputing nations. Brunei has established a fishing Zone that overlaps a southern reef but has not made any formal claim.

Among all the nations disputing ownership of the Spratlys, China is the most powerful. Lately, they have been bullying all other claimant nation, especially the Philippines. Aside from their navy’s frequent excursion in the disputed islands, they warned the Americans not to get involved with the dispute, erected permanent structures in the area, intimidated our survey vessels and fired shots at Filipino fishing boats. They also cautioned our political leaders to keep their distance from the Spratlys; saying that visiting any of its islands would be tantamount to encroaching.

Of course, ownership of the Spratly Islands, which has been ignored for centuries, was only contested when the prospect of huge gas and oil deposits was revealed. But if we made our claim on the Spratlys long before the discovery of Camago-Malampaya oil deposits, why are we now in the middle of an arm conflict with China? Let's go back in history to find out.

Sometime in 1946, Tomas Cloma, a naval admiral, owner of a fishing fleet, founder and then president of Philippine Maritime Institute (now known as PMI colleges), in one of his many sea escapades, stumbled upon a group of tiny reefs and atolls somewhere in South China Sea. The old map indicates that the vastly treacherous, unchartered and unsurveyed area is called “Spratly Islands”, named after Capt. Richard Spratly, a British captain of a whaler ship, who first discovered the low-laying reefs and sandy islets in 29 March 1849, and named it after himself and his brother and first officer, William Spratly.

Seeing the area totally deserted, and perhaps thinking that it must still be within the Philippine territory, Admiral Cloma quickly made his claim. His first intention was to annex the group of reefs and islets with the Philippine archipelago, then put up a fish cannery and develop “guano” (excrements of bats and sea gulls use as fertilizer and ingredients for gunpowder) deposits. But the Philippine government, perhaps still engrossed in rebuilding a devastated country while enjoying the post war festivities, was dragging its feet to support his claim. Everyone thought it was worthless and a waste of time. They cannot imagine why Cloma would be so interested with those dangerous shoals and scattered barren land, of volcanic origin, where a small twig wouldn’t even grow. Besides, majority of the islets becomes invisible during high tide.

On May 15, 1956, undeterred by the apathetic attitude of his government, Cloma subsequently proclaimed to the world the founding of new state, the “Freedom Land”, then established a protectorate with one of the islands as its capital, with himself as “Chairman of the Supreme Council of the State”.

Today, it carries the more Filipino name - “Kalayaan” group of islands, with the islet of “pag-asa” as its capital. The Philippine government is now asserting its rights to sovereignty on the basis of Cloma’s claim. But, had the government of Manuel Roxas (1946-48), Elpidio Quirino (1948-53) or even Ramon Magsaysay (1953-57) supported Tomas Cloma’s claim, none of this territorial dispute would be happening today. In 1946, the Philippines, riding on the victory of the Americans in the Second World War, was considered more powerful than any of its similarly war-torn Asian neighbors. Any annexation of newly discovered land, especially those relinquished by the defeated Japanese, would have given us a strong foothold on the Spratlys and any question of its ownership today would be moot and academic.

The basis of each country’s claim:

Brunei's Claim

Brunei’s claims to the reefs are based on the “Law of the Sea”. It states that the southern part of the Spratly chain of islands is actually a part of its continental shelf and therefore a part of its territory and resources.

Malaysia has militarily occupied three islands that it considers to be within its continental shelf. They tried to build up one atoll by bringing in soil from the mainland and have built a hotel in the area. Some countries believe that Malaysia claim was inappropriate considering it was only made in 1979.

However, Sabah, a state of Malaysia, is being claimed by the Philippines under legal and historical bases. So if the Philippines reclaimed Sabah, by default, Malaysia's claims to the Spratly Islands will be declared null, and it will be given to the Philippines, because Malaysia designated its claims to the Spratly Islands as a part of Sabah.

People's Republic Of China Claim

The People's Republic of China claimed that all of Spratly Islands are part of China and have had a historical naval presence on and off, from 1932 to 1935. China continued to include the territory in their administrative area through the Map Compilation Committee. After the Second World War, China reclaimed sovereignty over the islands through post World War II arrangements based on various treaties of the "Allied Powers" and China built a hoar-stone on the island. In 1947, the government renamed 159 islands in the area.

They base their claim on the belief that the islands have been an integral part of China for nearly two thousand years and that neighboring countries and European Powers took advantage of China's poor condition and diversity to impinge on its sovereignty.

China claims to have discovered the islands in the "Han Dynasty" in 2 BC. The islands were claimed to have been marked on maps compiled during the time of "Eastern Han Dynasty" and “Eastern Wu" (one of the three kingdoms). In archaeological surveys the remains of Chinese pottery and coins have been found in the islands and are cited as proof for the PRC claim.

China have had been severely criticized for their unfounded claims. It has been made known that historically, simply surveying an area without establishing a civilization there or a military garrison does not hold much the same political weight as staking an official claim. However, China’s claim to the Spratlys is mostly grounded in the simple philosophy that since they were there first they rightly have sovereignty. However, many of these claims to sovereignty came directly from their fantasy books, which also describe foreign lands and fantastical creatures such as mermaids, bringing the validity of the source into question. There is also doubt as to whether these sources state a claim of sovereignty or simply mention the Spratlys alongside other foreign lands.

Republic Of China (Taiwan) Claim

The Republic of China (ROC), which ruled mainland China before 1949 and has been confined to the island of Taiwan since 1949, also claims all of the Spratly Islands. They insist that they have the right to claim the Spratlys as much as the People's Republic of China. Taiwan occupies Itu Aba, the largest island.

Vietnam's Claim

Vietnam's response to China's claim is that Chinese records are in fact records about non-Chinese territories. Vietnam's view is that the Chinese records do not constitute the declaration and exercise of sovereignty and that China did not declare sovereignty over the Spratlys until after World War II.

Vietnamese geographical maps record refers to Spratly Islands as Vietnamese territory as early as the 17th century. They were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District, mentioned in Dai Nam Unified Map, an atlas of Vietnam completed in 1838. It was shown as Vietnamese territory. Vietnam had conducted many geographical and resource surveys of the islands. The results of these surveys have been recorded in Vietnamese literature and history published since the 17th century.

The Cairo Declaration, drafted by the Allies and China towards the end of World War II, listed the territories that the Allies intended to strip from Japan and return to China. The text of the San Francisco treaty listed the Spratlys as not part of the list of territories to be returned to China.

The Philippines Claim

While the Philippines' claim to the Spratly Islands was first expressed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, Philippine involvement in the Spratlys did not begin in earnest until 1956, when Cloma proclaimed the founding of a new state, Kalayaan (Freedom Land).

The text of the San Francisco treaty stated that Japan had to give up any claim of sovereignty over the Spratlys but did not specify the country to which the Spratlys would go. Tomas Cloma and the present day government's view is that this made the Spratlys Res nullius (meaning- nobody's thing).

Res nullius is a Latin term derived from Roman law whereby res (objects in the legal sense, anything that can be owned, even slaves, but not subjects in law such as citizens) are not yet the object of rights of any specific subject. Such items are considered ownerless property and are usually free to be owned. Since a thing completely lost or abandoned is res nullius, it therefore belongs to the first taker.

The Philippines had troops posted on three islands by 1968 on the premise of protecting Kalayaan citizens. In early 1971 the Philippines sent a diplomatic note on behalf of Cloma to Taipei demanding the ROC's withdrawal from Itu Aba and on 10 July in the same year Ferdinand Marcos announced the annexation of the 53 island group known as Kalayaan, although since neither Cloma or Marcos specified which fifty three features constituted Kalayaan, the Philippines began to claim as many features as possible. In April 1972 Kalayaan was officially incorporated into Palawan province and was administered as a single “poblacion” (township), with Tomas Cloma as the town council Chairman. The Philippines also reportedly attempted to land troops on Itu Aba in 1977 to occupy the island but were repelled by ROC troops stationed on the island.

A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical claim over the Spratlys is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant who can make such a statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical miles of jurisdiction beyond its land boundaries. It is perhaps telling that while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and Vietnam are not. The Philippines also argue, under "Law of the Sea" provisions, PRC cannot extend its baseline claims to the Spratlys because the PRC is not an archipelagic state. Whether this argument (or any other used by the Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as the PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and have rejected Philippine challenges to take the dispute to the World Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg.

Unfortunately, our lawmakers are starting to back out from the fight for possession and right to sovereignty to the Spratlys, saying that it is better to use diplomatic approach in settling the dispute. They said we cannot sustain an arm conflict in the event our Asian neighbors decide to forcibly occupy the whole of Spratly Islands for themselves.

Foreign critics say Filipinos are one of the most un-nationalistic, un-patriotic people in the world. While other nationals would risk their lives to protect their country by repelling trespassers, poachers and foreign evaders, we Filipinos just sit down and watch foreigners ridicule, abuse, steal our lands, pilfer our natural resources, insult and take advantage of us even in our own back yard.

I don’t know about you readers, but I beg to disagree. If any of them try to invade the spratlys, I would hire a "banca", travel to the "kalayaan" group of islands and drive them all out with my 38 cal. pistol. I might die trying, but at least I can live with my conscience whenever I sing, “aming ligaya na pag may mang-aapi, ang mamatay ng dahil sa iyo”.

--- END ---